PED's on/off during various flight stages - Why?

[Austman]

FWIW many, many long-haul aircraft have in-seat telephones and it hasn't led to the kinds of scenarios I think many people fear mobile phone usage would (i.e., obnoxiously loud phone conversations from your seat mates)..

Where it's still offered it's usually on the back of the IFE handset. The cost can be quite high (one reason for the low use perhaps? - eg Qantas charge $5.00/minute). It's several factors that make some of these services fail (eg high cost, poor quality, passenger perception, cabin management...). I've tired a few times to use the in-flight phones and have not had much luck recently. So add another negative: reliability.

 

[Mh4k]

I think we need to think about the physics a bit more with some of this discussion.

• aircraft radar is directional and the power is directed away from the aircraft
• shielding against the aircraft radar is very easy to implement because the radar is in a fixed position
• ground based radar may be vastly more powerful than a mobile phone. But that radar is also much, much further away. Inverse square law!

The above is true, though it's also true to note that the point at which the ground-based radar is at its strongest is also the point at which the plane is closest to the ground - the precise same point at which passenger electronics are meant to be disabled.

I agree we should think about the physics, as part of taking an overall evidence-based approach to the issue. It must undoubtedly be true that in the past decade the number of passenger electronic devices has increased dramatically, and with it the number of devices which are improperly shut down - but there has been no corresponding increase in air accidents or reports of malfunctioning instrumentation. If there were - the devices would be banned outright.

Up until relatively recently there were no passenger electronic devices. Once they began to proliferate the FAA effectively evaluated the most popular devices of the time - electric shavers and voice recorders - and declared them safe for use, then, as a precautionary measure, placed a limit on the use of devices they had not so tested that they not be used during the most critical moments of flight. Since then there has been no re-evaluation of any further devices. This is the reason your iPod isn't permitted but a dictaphone is. The bar on the use of these devices is archaic and pointless.

 

[LiamR]

These aren't my own words, but can I just say....

Would you honestly, get on a plane, flying 800km/h 30,000ft high knowing one iPhone switch could bring everything down?

Maybe in much older aircraft, this was a problem. But I think the rule has other reasons apart from interfearence with the aircraft's navigation systems.

 

[fjc]

Today, on QF533 BNE-SYD, the CSM went through the spiel twice (due to a delay in push back). Each time, she specifically said that a number of items had to be turned off. Forget the full list, but "all ebook readers, including Kindles" specifically mentioned.

First time I've heard the specific reference to Kindles.

Some time ago, reported one UK person who tried to talk on her phone during take off x Dubbo. She didn't follow my strong suggestion to turn it off, so reported her immediately to the FA who told her in no uncertain terms to turn it off. PAX was very annoyed with me.

I turn everything off. However, around me today I'm sure that a few people hadn't.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

First time I've heard the specific reference to Kindles.

Maybe because there are 3g Kindles available now?

 

[medhead]

The above is true, though it's also true to note that the point at which the ground-based radar is at its strongest is also the point at which the plane is closest to the ground - the precise same point at which passenger electronics are meant to be disabled.

The ground based radar is still a long way away, 1+km whereas the PED could be right up against a wire or cable or whatever.

I agree we should think about the physics, as part of taking an overall evidence-based approach to the issue. It must undoubtedly be true that in the past decade the number of passenger electronic devices has increased dramatically, and with it the number of devices which are improperly shut down - but there has been no corresponding increase in air accidents or reports of malfunctioning instrumentation. If there were - the devices would be banned outright.

You've just provided a qualitative assessment, so that is hardly evidence based. Over the same time there has been a prohibition on the use of devices. How do you quantify the number that are and are not shutdown? You can't. So this is really just a subjective assessment

Up until relatively recently there were no passenger electronic devices. Once they began to proliferate the FAA effectively evaluated the most popular devices of the time - electric shavers and voice recorders - and declared them safe for use, then, as a precautionary measure, placed a limit on the use of devices they had not so tested that they not be used during the most critical moments of flight. Since then there has been no re-evaluation of any further devices. This is the reason your iPod isn't permitted but a dictaphone is. The bar on the use of these devices is archaic and pointless.

Do you mean there has been no further assessment by the FAA? I know that telstra laboratories have been conducting assessments up until a few years ago. Based on the reporting of their results at scientific conferences.

 

[markis10]

The ground based radar is still a long way away, 1+km whereas the PED could be right up against a wire or cable or whatever..

1km is not a long way away when it comes to EIRP versus the local PED, in fact it's likely the RF emission at the aircraft is many dB greater that the PED, but the aircraft is designed with that known interference in mind. It's likely the aircraft is not shielded for the harmonics from the PEDs BFO despite it being at a much lower EIRP emission level.

 

[serfty]

... The bar on the use of these devices is archaic and pointless.

It may be so or it may not be so or somewhere in between and any can argue with facts/fiction/conceptions/misconceptions until they are blue in the face or their keyboard is smoking.

There is still no dilemma - be prepared do as you are told with your devices or don't fly.

 

[straitman]

The "blog" I linked was the NY Times, who provided quantifiable data about the actual amount of radiation output by these devices versus a selection of devices which the FAA has cleared for use on takeoff and landing.

A blog is a blog :!: I read blogs from Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine and they are less factual than articles from the actual magazine. (I would rate AW&ST a lot higher up the aviation pecking order than the NYT)

There is no great mystery here. Aircraft systems are shielded against EMI. They're also exposed to far more powerful sources of EMI - such as radar - which are external to the aircraft during takeoff and landing than any consumer electronic device. This poses no danger, as the electronics are shielded.

A very broad and highly subjective statement. There are many factual articles and much research that disagrees with your subjective assessment.

There is no other category of device or substance which could "potentially" pose a threat to aircraft which we allow onboard on the basis of an honour system that passengers will not use them in a manner or at a time that may pose a danger. Not so long ago passengers were prevented from boarding with more than one cigarette lighter (itself a ridiculous stipulation). If these devices were a credible threat to aircraft safety they would not be permitted onboard.

This type of argument is used many times on many subjects and has repeatedly been proven wrong. The whole Aviation Dangerous Goods Regulations are based upon these premises that you say does not occur anywhere else.

 

[medhead]

1km is not a long way away when it comes to EIRP versus the local PED, in fact it's likely the RF emission at the aircraft is many dB greater that the PED, but the aircraft is designed with that known interference in mind. It's likely the aircraft is not shielded for the harmonics from the PEDs BFO despite it being at a much lower EIRP emission level.

I guess the other question (for me, to lazy to check) is the wavelength of radar. I would guess it is relatively long given the objects being "imaged" are large. Anyway, if it is longer than the size of the windows a metal skin is going to provide effective shielding. Unlike a PED inside the aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

To the OP - there is issue for you to be involved in.

The rule is quite simple on two grounds. Emitting devises need to be turned off in case they interfere with instruments or communication and secondly, they need to be switched off in case there is an emergency and to make sure people are not distracted.

In you case the emitting device was turned off and the item was stowed.

Nothing, except for a power trip, can be gained by telling the passenger of crew they have not followed the rules.

 

[notzac]

I just do as requested by the crew. I don't consider myself 'above the law' in this respect no matter whether I agree with it or not. If someone else did not it would depend on the level of non-compliance as to whether I said anything to anyone, but it would need to be a significant and blatant breach (and am yet to see one) for me to speak up.

Exactly this. I have no idea whether or not phones in flight mode but still actually on can interfere with navigation systems - nor do I care enough to find out. As far as I see it, you're required to follow the direction of pilots and cabin crew whilst on board a plane. If they say turn it off - do so!

That said, I think the only time I'd get snarky with another pax about something like this is if they were still texting / e-mailing / interwebbing after being told to turn everything off.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

BA Thread on FT recently;

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Using a mobile on a plane means you could loose status -- so says a crew member[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Was sat on a plane back from Europe last week and was 3 or 4 rows from the front. Plane landed and a few of the passangers in row 1 decided to turn on mobiles and start texting/reading messages. Yes this is wrong but hey ho.

After we get onto stand the crew member goes up to both of these people and tells then he could report them to the Executive club as they are GCH and they could loose the said benefits. He said it is within the terms and conditions of the Executive Club. He did follow this up that he would not report them this time!! One of the passangers then told him exactly what he thought of it!!

I had to laugh as I figured he was talking hot air or was the crew member correct that you could loose status?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


The thread then turns into a "signals and interference debate".


QF let you turn on mobiles as soon as you land, generally speaking. And at LHR too l might add (May 2011).



Is QF acting in a unsafe manner by letting pax turn on our mobiles after landing and taxiing to gate? Or is it hot air?

As someone else put in post #14 on that thread;

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]God forbid a BA aircraft should be affected by a stray signal from an EK A380 taxiing behind it

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Justinf]

It may be so or it may not be so or somewhere in between and any can argue with facts/fiction/conceptions/misconceptions until they are blue in the face or their keyboard is smoking.

There is still no dilemma - be prepared do as you are told with your devices or don't fly.

The dilemma was should I be prepared to step in and ask that a fellow traveller turn off their device when they hadn't done so?In this case I didn't, based on the grounds that out of an aircraft that had 80 people on board, it would be ridiculous to assume that everyone had followed the rules.
And I agree. I followed the rules. Others obviously did not.

To the OP - there is issue for you to be involved in.

The rule is quite simple on two grounds. Emitting devises need to be turned off in case they interfere with instruments or communication and secondly, they need to be switched off in case there is an emergency and to make sure people are not distracted.

In you case the emitting device was turned off and the item was stowed.

Nothing, except for a power trip, can be gained by telling the passenger of crew they have not followed the rules.

I resent the accusiton of you telling me I was on a power trip. You have no basis for insinuating that whatsoever. Perhaps my own safety was the overriding reason why I might have stepped in and asked the passenger to turn off their device. But as stated above, I did not purely because the odds of at least, and I mean at least, one device on the aircraft would have been left on anyway. Short of wandering down the aisle and demanding confiscation of all electronic devices, I reasoned to myself that there is really not much I can do about it. I may choose to single out one person that I can see with my own eyes who is not doing the right thing, but then there are bound to be others who are similarly doing the wrong thing, who are out of sight. In the end, it was a case of lean back, shut my eyes and wait for the drinks trolley to come by eventually.

 

[serfty]

The dilemma was should I be prepared to step in and ask that a fellow traveller turn off their device when they hadn't done so?In this case I didn't, based on the grounds that out of an aircraft that had 80 people on board, it would be ridiculous to assume that everyone had followed the rules. ...

And I agree. I followed the rules. Others obviously did not. ...

Fair enough, I was influenced by latter posts.

I can understand that situation - it's a tough gig but in reaility I wouldn't even know how to turn a uphone 'right' off (or on for that matter).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I resent the accusiton of you telling me I was on a power trip. You have no basis for insinuating that whatsoever. Perhaps my own safety was the overriding reason why I might have stepped in and asked the passenger to turn off their device. But as stated above, I did not purely because the odds of at least, and I mean at least, one device on the aircraft would have been left on anyway. Short of wandering down the aisle and demanding confiscation of all electronic devices, I reasoned to myself that there is really not much I can do about it. I may choose to single out one person that I can see with my own eyes who is not doing the right thing, but then there are bound to be others who are similarly doing the wrong thing, who are out of sight. In the end, it was a case of lean back, shut my eyes and wait for the drinks trolley to come by eventually.

sorry, I was just stating it as I see it. as I pointed out, there was no safety issue. the device was not transmitting, and the device had been stowed. if there is no safety issue what is the motivation to tell someone off?

let's look at some examples when I might want to enforce safety...

• person in front of me reclines seat during take off or landing - yes
• person sitting in row in front of me and reclines onto passenger behind and blocking my path to the aisle during take off and landing - yes
• passenger sitting between me and the aisle listening to iPhone, or playing with electronic device - yes (they might impede my path to the exit)
• passenger sleeping in exit row during take off or landing or at exit row and sleeping through safety briefing - yes
• unsuitable passenger (as defined by aviation regulations) sitting at an exit row - yes

but!!

• passenger sitting at the window seat listening to their iPhone during take off or landing, when I am in the aisle - NO (even if they are distracted, the only person they are going to endanger is themselves, they're not blocking me at all)
• passenger next to me has changed device to non emitting mode and put it away - no

unless something has a direct impact on my safety, it's not my place to force them to do something, or to tell tales on them to get the crew to do something.

I was on a qantas flight one time and we had a delay at the gate, but after the initial announcement had been made to turn off all mobiles. we were just sitting there with the door still open. another passenger took it on themselves to inform the crew that someone was using a phone! the crew just laughed them off. I cannot understand why the passenger would even take that action.

really there was no offense meant by my post, I was just trying to work out what the motivation was if there was no safety implication.

 

[Justinf]

sorry, I was just stating it as I see it. as I pointed out, there was no safety issue. the device was not transmitting, and the device had been stowed. if there is no safety issue what is the motivation to tell someone off?

let's look at some examples when I might want to enforce safety...

• person in front of me reclines seat during take off or landing - yes
• person sitting in row in front of me and reclines onto passenger behind and blocking my path to the aisle during take off and landing - yes
• passenger sitting between me and the aisle listening to iPhone, or playing with electronic device - yes (they might impede my path to the exit)
• passenger sleeping in exit row during take off or landing or at exit row and sleeping through safety briefing - yes
• unsuitable passenger (as defined by aviation regulations) sitting at an exit row - yes

but!!

• passenger sitting at the window seat listening to their iPhone during take off or landing, when I am in the aisle - NO (even if they are distracted, the only person they are going to endanger is themselves, they're not blocking me at all)
• passenger next to me has changed device to non emitting mode and put it away - no

unless something has a direct impact on my safety, it's not my place to force them to do something, or to tell tales on them to get the crew to do something.

I was on a qantas flight one time and we had a delay at the gate, but after the initial announcement had been made to turn off all mobiles. we were just sitting there with the door still open. another passenger took it on themselves to inform the crew that someone was using a phone! the crew just laughed them off. I cannot understand why the passenger would even take that action.

really there was no offense meant by my post, I was just trying to work out what the motivation was if there was no safety implication.

Thanks for the response and I probably overreacted.
Point taken, however if all electronic devices are supposed to be turned off once the door is closed, isn't that impacting on everyone's safety in the entire cabin? Whether or not you believe the devices are harmful in the first place?
The reason I did make the OP, is that I am a nervous flyer, despite me making regular flights all around the world very often. When I see someone not obeying the rules (and they are rules whether we agree with them or not), I start thinking irrationally and panic. I guess I just want things to go as smoothly as possible and when I see someone with an electrical device turned on when it shoulnd't be, my mind starts to think of the worst possible conclusion. (a solid dose of diazepam usually does the trick though)

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks for the response and I probably overreacted.
Point taken, however if all electronic devices are supposed to be turned off once the door is closed, isn't that impacting on everyone's safety in the entire cabin? Whether or not you believe the devices are harmful in the first place?
The reason I did make the OP, is that I am a nervous flyer, despite me making regular flights all around the world very often. When I see someone not obeying the rules (and they are rules whether we agree with them or not), I start thinking irrationally and panic. I guess I just want things to go as smoothly as possible and when I see someone with an electrical device turned on when it shoulnd't be, my mind starts to think of the worst possible conclusion. (a solid dose of diazepam usually does the trick though)

no worries if you had stated you were a nervous flyer then perhaps this thread could have been about reassurance

there is a rule that phones etc need to be turned off. that really came about many moons ago when there was no such thing as flight mode and mobiles could not be turned on at any time but. that was a rule I agree with, regardless of the debate over whether there is or not a safety issue.

however these days phones have a non transmitting mode, that changes things slightly. I think the rule to still turn them off is to prevent the potential distraction to pax during take off and landing, rather than a danger to flight systems. so again going back to your example, flight mode plus stowing away gets rid of safety issues.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I think that rule might also help the technologically naive: those who don't know what "flight mode" is or cannot turn it on

 

[alieninperth]

As the newer planes also allow IFE from gate to gate, I hardly think that this is a matter of attention during the ascent/descent.

I do appreciate that the crew can turn off the IFE but if something were to happen suddenly, how quickly would this happen?